Fix in ggcoef_compare() when using an include argument

[larmarange]

Fix #447

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

Merging #448 (cd41f16) into master (53c1f65) will increase coverage by 0.00%.
The diff coverage is 100.00%.

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##           master     #448   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   92.08%   92.09%           
=======================================
  Files          36       36           
  Lines        4361     4362    +1     
=======================================
+ Hits         4016     4017    +1     
  Misses        345      345           

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
R/stat_weighted_mean.R	87.71% <ø> (ø)
R/ggcoef_model.R	98.26% <100.00%> (+<0.01%)	⬆️
R/ggnetworkmap.R	85.89% <100.00%> (ø)
R/ggparcoord.R	96.96% <100.00%> (ø)

Help us with your feedback. Take ten seconds to tell us how you rate us. Have a feature suggestion? Share it here.

[larmarange]

Note: I have also updated documentation of stat_weighted_mean() and the way to test class inheritance in two files, in order to pass the checks.

[larmarange]

Dear @schloerke

This PR has been ready for review since the end of August. The last version of GGally was released in June 2021. Therefore, the last bug fixes from January 2022 are not yet available for users.

I know that package maintenance could be a challenge, but it could be relevant to submit a new version of GGally.

Regarding the maintenance of the ggcoef_*() family of functions, would it be easier for you if I develop and submit on CRAN a standalone package with just these functions, and then if we import them in GGally? (I know that the drawback would be to increase the number of dependencies for GGally but on the other side we could remove some dependencies needed only for the ggcoef_*() family).

To be noted, it would also require to move geom_stripped_rows() and geom_stripped_cols() to this new package and to reimport them in GGally.

Please let me know what you prefer

[schloerke]

but it could be relevant to submit a new version of GGally.

@larmarange Yes! Especially with #451 . I'll start prep today.

---

Should we make a {ggcoef} package and reexport within {GGally}?

Sorry that I've been slow on releases. Yes, you do a great job fixing bugs very quickly. I'd be happy to reexport any methods from this R package.

Example syntax

#' @export
PACKAGE::METHOD

If you'd like for me to wait on releasing {GGally} so that your new package re-exports can be made, let me know. 😃